It is often said that
it is all too easy to criticize something without taking the time to show
how the situation could be made better. Since the damage that is caused by
current processes, attitudes and staff is so horrendous it does not take
much thought to suggest something that would be a vast improvement.

Children's Service

The basic problem:

The Children's Service seems to
have four main precepts:

1) It will never be held to account for the vast harm
that it causes.

2) You are guilty, unless you are a female willing to
make accusations against a male, in which case they will assist.

3) If you are male you will lose your children, you are
cut out of their lives immediately. If you are female but support a male
then you are treated as an "honorary male" (or "failed
female") and your children will be removed.

4) Evidence, rational thought and even decisions made
in a law court can be ignored. If they do not like the look of you then
you must be guilty.

At heart the Children's Service is a misandrist
organisation, as long as the female plays along with the prejudices then
the female can do no wrong. Even if a law court decides on evidence that a
female has made false allegations, or has herself abused children, it will
cause no change in the Children's Service viewpoint.

It pretends to conduct investigations into allegations
of criminal activity but it has no competence (in any meaning) to do so
and the accused will suddenly find themselves in a kangaroo court where
hearsay rules and they are expected to prove negatives without being
allowed to use any evidence that does exist.

Support will be offered and given to the female
(including tactical and legal advice concerning how to retain control of
the situation), the male has to fend for himself.

The service will act on pure hearsay, it will not
listen or otherwise examine evidence that does not fit in with
pre-conceived notions.

Compared to any "innocent until proven guilty"
format that might be traditional elsewhere, the accused is treated as
guilty from the outset and will have to attempt to disprove assertions
from periods of his life that might be years in the past.

The service will enforce its printed "star-chamber
rules" against the male but ignore them if flouted by the female.

Interim decisions will favor the female and thereafter
the "status quo" will be used as an excuse. Once an anti-male
allegation has been made it is treated as gospel. If the allegation is
eventually put to the test, whether by the police, the law courts or any
other method and found to be false the Children's Service will continue as
if the allegation was true and consequently the idea of taking action
against the female, supporting the male or even attempting to rectify the
harm the service has caused will not even come into consideration.

Lawyers and para-legals understand this and use the
biased nature of the service to the female's advantage and the gross
detriment both of the children concerned and other family members that are
not favored by the female. I suspect that a sizeable portion of the
Childrens Service positively enjoys breaking up families, providing
further fodder for the Social Services.

The Children's Service will never make an admission of
wrongdoing or apology for the vast amount of harm caused to the children
or parent, it is as if they actively take pleasure in the damage that they
create.

Since so much time is wasted reaching bogus conclusions
on false premises it stands to reason that those few cases where child
abuse actually has occurred will not have received the correct level of
attention.

A Solution:

The Childrens Service is simply not competent to
investigate child abuse allegations. It is plainly incorrect and unjust
that the effective power to destroy family life of both adults and
children should fall to the whim of a social worker. Although I have very
little faith in them the "natural" organisation for
investigating crimes is the police force. Some of the police do at least
understand that allegations should be put to the test and that the police
force is not also judge and jury. The police have the option of
prosecuting (abuse of a child, attempting to pervert the course of
justice, perjury, wasting police time to name a few) when allegations are
found to be false however I have never heard of them using these options
whereas it should be mandatory.

The law should be amended such that making false
allegations to a government agency becomes a defined criminal offence. In
the instance of false allegations of sexual offences, or other offences
against children, the minimum sentence should be one year imprisonment
with the maximum matched to the maximum sentence that would have been
applied to the alleged offence. It should be made an absolute offence,
that is to say without the need to establish "intent" (mens rea)
since the damage caused is permanent in either event. Furthermore if a
false allegation involves children then the allegation will be a form of
abuse of the children, if there is intent it is a deliberate attempt to
destroy the family and pervert the course of justice and if there is abuse
without intent then the accuser is too dangerous to be entrusted with the
care of children.

Allegations must never be used to have the effect of an
ouster order. If the accuser claims that they are at some form of risk
from remaining in the matrimonial home then it is up to the accuser to
leave. The accused must be given the immediate opportunity to secure the
building and possessions. If the accused requests that the building be
sealed then this must be done.

In order to prevent the pitfall posed by the status quo
in disputed cases of abuse the children should either be under equal
residence with both parties whilst the matter is under process (it being
reasoned that any repetition of alleged behavior under such circumstances
would be extremely unlikely) or taken in to a specific special form of
care where neither parent is favored, both parents have equal supervised
access and the children are protected from interference by agencies (which
would include interference by the SS). An alternative would be to split
the Childrens Service into maternal and paternal wings, each supporting
their side in a similar fashion to the traditional adversarial nature of
British courts.

It would be better if the service were renamed to
reflect what it actually does "Female allegation team" or "Family
destruction" would be more accurate, it has precious little to do
with what is actually better for children. I would also query the basis
under which the staff can be considered "professional" as they
simply do not qualify for that label under any general meaning of the
term, if the service was called "Nosey neighbours" it might
better reflect the degree of trust that should be placed in them.

Any "independent chair" of a Children's
Service committee must be demonstrably independent, as a former SS
employee Jean Andrews simply cannot be regarded as independent, she should
be sacked immediately and replaced with some rational person who is truly
independent of the SS.

All staff to be evaluated for competence and bias,
membership of known misandrist organisations to be a mark of failure.

A 50:50 male:female staff ratio to be attempted, an
imbalance of more than 10% to be refused.

A minimum of 75% of staff to have experience of raising
their own children in a normal family setting.

Those members of the public who have the slightest
experience of the family courts rapidly learn what the term "Kafkaesque"
means. These courts are a disgrace in comparison to the basic tenets of
British justice, a magistrate's court is an area of modern enlightenment
in comparison and I believe the general public would be disgusted if they
knew of the travesties that are played out at public expense by a small
self-perpetuating group of rather well paid operators who have the benefit
of total secrecy covering their actions. A magistrate's court may not be
perfect but in comparison to the family courts it is several orders of
magnitude better. Particular changes (patterned after the Magistrate's
court) that should be made immediately:

No secrecy, justice must be seen to be done, all
hearings to be open.

No gagging orders of any kind.

All those who submit "evidence" to be open to
cross-examination.

Hearsay to be treated simply as hearsay.

and most importantly

Innocent until proven guilty.

Criminal allegations to require criminal standards of
proof.

Any allegation where the maximum penalty would split
the accused from any immediate member of the family for 6 months to
automatically be given the option to be heard in front of a jury.

[please consider this with the regard to the right of
any person accused of any other offense where the maximum penalty that
might be imposed is six months or more to have a jury trial. If you have
been accused of say theft with the threat of being jailed for 26 weeks if
convicted you can demand to have the case heard and the decision of guilt
or innocence made by twelve normal people but if you have been accused of
any of the aspects that can come up in a child protection conference then
you may find yourself permanently removed from your children just on the
say of a social worker]

The British government is apparently starting to
realise how costly the family courts are. I would imagine that their prime
interest is in the tax burden of running the courts (rather than of any
innate desire to see justice prevail or prevent the wholesale destruction
of families). Given what the British government has done to encourage
divorce within various acts of parliament, and the government and local
authority agencies that are designed to destroy families it is not
surprising that there are an increasing number of cases that take
advantage of the biased opportunities that now exist. I suspect that the
vast majority of allegations are fueled by two particular strands, the
desire to hurt the accused in any way that is available and the desire for
financial benefit. Given the nature of the majority of people that would
consider making such allegations there is probably not a lot that can be
done regarding their desire to hurt but the prospect of receiving no
financial advantage can be attended to. If the instigation of false
allegations raised the prospect of an actual penalty then perhaps they
would balance their wishes to cause damage against the risk of being found
out.

Solutions:

Pre and post nuptial agreements to be given full
force (removing any discretion of the court).

I think it can be seen that one set of laws is
unlikely to cover the attitudes, beliefs and traditions of each and every
couple or family. A very simple change that would remove an enormous
burden from the family courts would be to permit (or force) those couples
who prefer to be married according to the rites of a particular religion
(being a religion that is accepted as a religious body and has people who
are duly authorised to carry out a marriage ceremony) to have the
dissolution of that marriage carried out by the same religious body and
according to their strictures and traditions. It would be the respondent
(the person who did not file for divorce) who would have the the choice
between a "church" or "civil" divorce.

Naturally there will be a considerable number of
people who do not regard a church wedding or other religious ceremony as
being the appropriate setting and for those the civil function will have
to suffice. In those cases where there is no existing pre-nuptial
agreement the couple must indicate on signing the register either that all
pre-nuptial assets are taken out of consideration in the event of divorce
or that all pre-nuptial assets are to be divided equally. The marriage
certificate issued indicates the choice of individual pre-nuptial
agreement, equal division of pre-nuptial assets or pre-nuptial assets to
be beyond the grasp of the spouse and court.

If the ludicrous concept of the no-fault divorce
is enforced then the person who initiates such a divorce abandons any
claim on the spouse, children (if any) and matrimonial assets.

Police

Having seen the conduct of two police interviews of a
child, under what they consider to be "best practice" (methods
and conditions), I have to say that I am not impressed. I have a very
slight sympathy with the Police in that interrogation has been a part of
their methods from the very beginning but it must be understood that
interviewing a child who has been under the sole control of one parent (or
of one side of the family) renders the interview suspect. If any weight is
to be given to a child's interview then the other parent must be given
sufficient time to reestablish proper contact with their child beforehand.
Adults seem to forget that the perceived passage of time is entirely
different for a child who may well regard a day, week or month as an
eternity. If the SS and police policy prevents the accused parent from
seeing the child for months on end then the SS and police have abused not
only the child but also the parent from being denied contact. From the
child's point of view they have effectively been abandoned and when you
have got to that stage it is relatively simple for the "free"
parent to control the child. Putting the child in a situation where they
know that their controlling parent is just the other side of a door when
their other parent has been kept out of the child's life puts an enormous
influence on what they will say.